2012 (8) TMI 1224 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of impounding the petitioner's passport u/s 10(3)(d) of the Passport Act, 1967.
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the impounding process.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Impounding the Passport u/s 10(3)(d)

The petitioner's passport was impounded by the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai, based on the conviction by the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, and subsequent orders. The petitioner argued that the impounding was against the provisions of law, including the Passport Act, and violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that since his conviction was under appeal and the sentence was suspended, the invocation of Section 10(3)(d) was invalid. However, the court held that the suspension of the sentence does not erase the conviction, citing the Supreme Court's clarification in Dy. Director of Collegiate Education (Admn.) v. S. Nagoor Meera. Therefore, the power under Section 10(3)(d) was validly invoked.

Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

The petitioner claimed that the impounding of his passport was done without following the principles of natural justice, as he was not given a notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which emphasized the necessity of following the principles of natural justice, including the audi alteram partem rule, before impounding a passport. The court found that the impugned order was based on a letter from the CBI without hearing the petitioner, making it invalid. The court directed the first respondent to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders under Section 10(3)(d) if required. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.